Plan a site from a brief

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool costs 1 credit, that it produces a page-and-section plan, and that the plan can be reviewed and edited before building. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not state whether the plan is persisted, overwrites an existing plan, or requires any setup state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core transformation, adds the credit cost, and closes with the workflow next step. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains the output shape (pages and ordered sections), the required input (brief), the cost, and the recommended next step. There is no output schema, so describing the plan contents is important and well handled. Minor gaps remain around error cases and what happens to previously stored plans, but the definition is complete enough for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents brief, base, and language. The description adds context about what the plan contains and that base comes from the template library, but it does not materially deepen the meaning of any individual parameter beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: turn a one-paragraph business brief into a site plan of pages and ordered sections from the template library. It also names the next step (sweipe_ai_build) and the credit cost. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like sweipe_brief_generate or sweipe_site_from_brief, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it: when you have a brief and need a reviewable plan before building. It also gives explicit workflow ordering with 'before sweipe_ai_build' and notes the plan can be edited. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative plan-related tools, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.